Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CRM(M)/135/2022 of MOTI LAL SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs UT OF J AND K TH SHO PS BAKSHI NAGAR AND ANOTHER on 31 December 2022
OF JAMMU, KASHMIRAND LADAKH ATJAMMU CRM(M)135/2022 CrlM 315/2022 Moti Lal Sharma and others .....Petitioner/appellants (s) Through:- Mr. Rajesh Bhushan, Advocate, v/s Union Territory of J&K and another .....Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG Mr. Vikas Magotra, Advocate
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU, KASHMIRAND LADAKH ATJAMMU
CRM(M)135/2022 CrlM 315/2022
Moti Lal Sharma and others
.....Petitioner/appellants (s)
Through:-Mr. Rajesh Bhushan, Advocate,
v/s
Union Territory of J&K and another
.....Respondent(s)
Through:-Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG Mr. Vikas Magotra, Advocate
Coram:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
1. By this petitionfiled under Section 482 Cr.P.C petitioners seek quashment of FIR No. 22/2022 dated 24.02.2022 registered with Police Station Bakshi Nagar, Jammu for commission of offences under Sections 457, 380, 427, 354 IPC.
2. The case in brief is that an FIR bearing No. 22/2022 dated 24.02.2022 was registered at the instance of respondent no. 2-Indu Sharma with Police Station, Bakshi Nagar, Jammu under Sections 457, 380, 427, 354 IPC. It is stated that impugned FIR is an attempt to convert a civil dispute relates to a shop which is subject matter of agreement to sell and the same has been converted into a criminal matter by leveling false and frivolous allegations.
3. Respondent no. 2 is stated to have entered into a compromise with the petitioners and consequently she has stated she has no objection in case impugned FIR is quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the disputes and differences have been amicably settled between the complainant/Indu Sharma- respondent No. 2 herein and petitioners herein and memo of compromise also executed thereof, as such, prays for disposal of the instant petition and consequently, quashment of the FIR in question. The statement of the respondent No. 2 has already been recorded in support of the compromise before the Registrar Judicial of this Court.
5. It will be appropriate and advantageous herein to refer to the case titled Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 in which the Supreme Court had amply clarified the legal position in recognizing the position of compromise. The court in the above mentioned case held that “……the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”
6. Thus, the Supreme Court held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive. It will be in the interest of justice, if the settlement reached between the parties is accepted
7. In view of the amicable settlement between the parties, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice to put an end to the proceedings, while quashing the impugned FIR, therefore, FIR No. 22/2022 dated 24.02.2022 for commission of offences under Sections 457, 380, 427, 354 IPC shall stand quashed.
8. The petition stands disposed of, accordingly, along with connected applications.
Jammu31.12.2022 Bir
(VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE